DOI 10.

1515/humor-2012-0026    Humor 2012; 25(4): 491 – 505

Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

Childhood experiences of professional
comedians: Peer and parent relationships
and humor use
Abstract: This study examines a commonly held belief, left over from psychoana-
lytic theories of humor as a coping mechanism, that relationships with parents
strongly influence comedians’ temperaments and career choices. Thirty one pro-
fessional stand-up comedians and 400 students completed the Parental Bonding
Instrument (PBI), which concerns recollected parental care and protectiveness,
and a new self-report questionnaire that measures popularity and humor use
among peers during adolescence. Results show that comedians’ parents did not
differ from students’ parents in care or protectiveness, and comedians did not dif-
fer from students in adolescent popularity, but comedians did use more humor
among adolescent peers (were more likely to be class clowns, make fun of others,
laugh at themselves, and be the butt of jokes). The results suggest that stand-up
comedians do not differ much from ordinary college students in their parental or
adolescence peer relationships.

Keywords: humor, comedians, stand-up comedy, parental bonding, development

Gil Greengross: Anthropology Department, University of New Mexico, MSC01-1040,

Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States. E-mail: humorology@gmail.com
Rod A. Martin: Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario,
Canada, N6A 5C2. E-mail: ramartin@uwo.ca
Geoffrey Miller: Department of Psychology, MSC03-2220, 1 University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM 87131. E-mail: gfmiller@unm.edu

1 Introduction

There is a widely held belief that professional humorists, such as comedians and
clowns, are sad or depressed, which has received partial empirical support in
previous research (Janus 1975; Janus et al. 1978). The reasons for this alleged
glumness vary, but many think that its roots have to do with an unhappy child-
hood or troubled relationships with parents. According to this view, comedians’

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
492    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

performances on stage serve as a coping mechanism, enabling them to escape

from their daily troubles (Janus 1975, Janus et al. 1978).
Early research showed that comedians are likely to come from a low socioeco-
nomic stratum (Fisher and Fisher 1981, Janus 1975, Janus et al. 1978). Approxi-
mately 80–85% of comedians in two separate studies, one with 55 nationally
known comedians (51 males), and another with 14 female comedians, came from
low socioeconomic homes (Janus 1975, Janus et al. 1978). The harsh conditions at
home may explain why comedians went on to pursue their career.
In a study of 43 comedians (35 males, 8 females, 15 of them clowns), Fisher
and Fisher (1981) found that, compared to a control group of professional actors
and other entertainers, comedians were more preoccupied with themes of
good and evil in their responses to interviews and projective tests. The authors of
the study attributed this finding to the fact that the parents of future comedians
placed much responsibility on their shoulders early in childhood, requiring them
to take on an adult role at an early age. They had to take care not only of them-
selves, but also of their siblings, and many of them worked as teens to support
their parents. According to Fisher and Fisher, these untimely demands and heavy
expectations put pressure on the comedians while growing up and drove them to
seek approval, hence trying to be as “good” as their parents wanted them to be.
Falling short of parents’ expectations produced different responses from their
parents. Fathers usually were disappointed that the comedians did not reach
their high expectations; thus the comedians felt they were “bad” from their
­fathers’ perspective. Many of the comedians’ mothers expected them to fail, just
waiting for this to happen. Fisher and Fisher proposed that one of the main rea-
sons why these comedians pursued a comic career was to prove that they are not
bad, and they are doing “good”.
Compared to the actors, Fisher and Fisher (1981) observed that comedians
typically described their fathers in much more positive terms, such as “good”,
“nice”, and “respected”. On the other hand, they describe their mothers as being
rule enforcers, disciplinarians, punishers, and aggressive critics. Many ­comedians
acknowledged that they were spanked, hit, and punished when they violated
their mothers’ rules. In reaction to pictures depicting mother figures in the
­Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), comedians were less likely than the actors to
describe these women as having maternal qualities or to refer to them specifically
as mothers. In contrast, they did ascribe paternal identity to father-like figures in
the same task.
Contrary to Fisher and Fisher, Janus (1975) found that male comedians over-
whelmingly reported being closer to their mothers, indicating that mothers
played a more active role in their lives than did their fathers. Mothers were seen
as more accepting figures than fathers, spending more time with them, encourag-

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    493

ing them to pursue a comic career, and better understanding their need to ­become
a comedian. Fathers were often absent during their childhood, or generally unin-
terested in their career and even discouraging them from pursuing it. Fathers also
failed in many cases to support their families, forcing the mothers to go to work.
The fathers were also resentful of the close bond between the mothers and the
aspiring comedians.
In a subsequent study with female comedians, Janus et al. (1978) found an
opposite trend. Female comedians felt closer to their fathers, and several of them
reported being raised without a mother, who died at an early age. Fathers were
role models for the comediennes, and they grew up admiring them. Similar to the
male comedians, fathers were generally described as poor providers, and the co-
mediennes felt they needed to support and encourage them. Their mothers were
described as unsuccessful, struggling, and unhappy, and most of them lived the
traditional role of a housewife. Relationships with their siblings were good, over-
all, and interestingly, 55% of comediennes were the youngest child in the family.
With regard to academic performance and relationships with peers, Fisher
and Fisher (1981) found that comedians struggled with school and were below
average students. Comedians tended to be funny early in life and in school, de-
scribing themselves as being the class clowns, mocking teachers and friends and
making practical jokes. In Janus’ (1975) study, comedians reported having good
relationships with peers and siblings, though they often felt misunderstood,
­being picked on and disparaged. Janus also reported that comedians’ childhood
experiences were marked by isolation, suffering, and deprivation feelings. In his
view, being funny serves as a defense mechanism against panic and anxiety. Only
when on stage could they enjoy a short period of relief from their fears. Janus
concluded that comedians were sad, depressed, suspicious, and angry (Janus
1975). These findings are consistent with another study of 96 class clowns, most
of them male, from a middle school (Damico & Purkey 1978). The study found that
the class clowns were more assertive, disobedient, attention-seeking, cheerful
and showed leadership, but were worse students, compared to their classmates,
as evaluated by their teachers. The class clowns in this study asserted that they
were not well understood by their parents and had negative attitudes toward
teachers and principals.
All these experiences in school, combined with their relationship with their
parents, suggest that comedians become what they are in an effort to seek con-
trol, get approval from friends and family, and prove that they are good and
­worthy. Comedians’ performance on stage, in this view, comes as a defense or
compensation mechanism for their melancholy lives, whereby they attempt to
channel feelings of anger and anxiety into their comedy act and seek the love of
the audiences (Fisher and Fisher 1981). Using humor as a coping mechanism is

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
494    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

not unique to professional comedians; humor has long been viewed as a healthy
defense mechanism or coping strategy for adults as well as children (Dixon 1980,
Freud 1928, Vaillant 2000).
The Janus and Fisher and Fisher studies rely heavily on a psychoanalytical ap-
proach that is largely based on projective tests with low reliability and validity and
subjective interpretation (e.g. Wood et al. 2001, Wood et al. 2003). This makes it hard
to come to robust conclusions about comedians’ childhood and early experiences,
and may account for the contradictory results in these studies, despite using similar
samples. Moreover, the comedy scene has changed dramatically since the time of
these studies, and comedians today may be quite different from the ones studied in
the past. Today there are many more professional comedians and aspiring comics,
and many more comedy clubs that host several ­performances each week. Thus, a
career in comedy may be less unusual and peripheral than it once was.
A further potential limitation of the Fisher and Fisher (1981) study is the use
of actors and other stage entertainers as a comparison group. These comparisons
might not be adequate to assess whether comedians indeed had unique child-
hoods and distinct relationships with parents, since both groups had unique
­vocations that do not represent most of the population.
The present study attempts to answer two questions: (1) Do professional
­comedians have unique relationships with parents compared to others? and (2)
What were their experiences in school and the nature of the relationships they
had with peers? The results could shed light on what factors influence the pursuit
of comedy as a career choice.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Thirty-one professional comedians (28 men, 3 women) were recruited through a

local comedy club in Albuquerque, NM. The comedians had an average age of
38.9 years (SD = 8.6, range 27–58). Comedians had an average of 15.3 years of edu-
cation (SD = 2.6). Twenty-two participants (71%) self-identified as White, 5 (16%)
as African American and 4 (13%) as Hispanic.
Four hundred undergraduates (200 males, 200 females) enrolled in psychol-
ogy courses at the University of New Mexico participated in the study and re-
ceived partial course credit for participation. The average age of the students was
20.6 years (SD = 4.7, range 18–57). Participants had an average of 13.4 years of edu-
cation (SD = 1.3). Two hundred thirty-one participants (58%) self-identified as

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    495

White, 117 (29%) as Hispanic, 19 (5%) as Asian, 14 (3.5%) as American Indian, 12

(3%) as African American, and 5 (1.5%) as other.
Up to 15 students sat in a classroom together and completed the question-
naires. Professional comedians were recruited by the first author introducing
himself after they performed at the comedy club, and asking if they wanted to
participate in a study on the psychology of humor. A meeting on a later day was
scheduled for those who agreed to participate. Meetings were held in a coffee
shop during the day, while the comedians were off work. All comedians signed
informed consent before participating and were debriefed after they completed
the questionnaires. After each questionnaire was completed, it was put in a box
with the other comedians’ questionnaires to ensure anonymity. Comedians were
compensated with a small meal during the meeting.

2.2 Relationship with parents

To assess relationships with parents, participants completed the Parental Bond-

ing Instrument (PBI) (Parker et al. 1979). The PBI is a 25-item questionnaire that
measures parental styles as perceived by the participant in retrospect. The par-
ticipants were instructed to answer how much a described behavior or attitude
reflected their parent in the first 16 years of their lives. The answers range from 1
– “very like” to 4 – “very unlike”. Twelve items measure the parent’s “care” (e.g.
“Was affectionate to me”), and 13 measure “overprotection” (e.g. “Tried to control
everything I did”). For each parental style, the scores for those items are summed.
The instrument is completed for both mothers and fathers separately.
Some of the participants in this study were raised by only one parent. These
participants were included in the data analysis pairwise, for that parent only, but
were omitted from analyses where no relevant data is available. Also, if partici-
pants had a stepparent, while still maintaining a relationship with their ­biological
parent, they were instructed to answer about the parent that was more significant
for them, and with whom they had spent the most time.
The PBI has good reliability and validity (Lizardi & Klein 2005, Wilhelm et al.
2005, Wilhelm & Parker 1990). Cronbach’s αs for the current study revealed
high  internal consistencies: mother’s care = .93, father’s care = .93, mother’s
­overprotection = .86, and father’s overprotection = .86.

2.3 Relationship with peers

To measure relationships with peers, participants completed the Peer Relation-

ships and Humor Questionnaire, which was developed specifically for this study

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
496    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

and consists of questions about social life and humor used in school. There were
eight retrospective questions, repeated for each of three grades (6th, 9th, and 12th).
Participants had to compare themselves to others on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1
means they were below average on this question and 7 means they were above
average. Scores were averaged for each question across the three time periods.
Cronbach’s αs for the all eight constructed averages were high and ranged from
.66 to .88. The first four questions measure popularity, while the last four ques-
tions assess social uses of humor. The questions were:
1. Compared to others, how many same sex friends did you have during the
following periods of time?
2. Compared to others, how many opposite sex friends did you have during the
following periods of time?
3. Compared to others, how often did others seek you out for social activities
during the following periods of time?
4. Compared to others, how popular were you during the following periods of
time?
5. Compared to others, how often did you make fun of yourself during the
following periods of time?
6. Compared to others, how much were you considered as the class clown
during the following periods of time?
7. Compared to others, how much were you the butt of the jokes of other
people during the following periods of time?
8. Compared to others, how much did you make fun of other people during the
following periods of time?

3 Results
An index for each question on the Peer Relationships and Humor Questionnaire
was calculated, based on the average score for each question across the three
time periods. Table 1 displays the correlations among all four social uses of ­humor
for both comedians and students in the full sample. For comedians there were
two significant positive correlations, between being the butt of the jokes and
made fun of oneself (.42), and between making fun of others and being the class
clown (.36). All correlations among students were positive and significant.
Since most of the comedians in this study were men, a separate analysis for
male only was conducted and is shown in table 2. In this analysis, only the cor-
relation between being the butt of the jokes and made fun of oneself was signifi-
cant for comedians (r = .39, p < .05). For students, all correlations were again
positive and significant, albeit slightly lower compared to the entire sample.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    497

Made fun of Class clown Butt of jokes Made fun of

oneself others

Made fun of oneself .17 .42* .31

Class clown .35*** .13 .36*
Butt of jokes .29*** .39*** .21
Made fun of others .35*** .34*** .27***

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Table 1: Full sample Pearson correlations between the four social uses of humor scales for
comedians (N = 31, above the diagonal) and for students (N = 400, below the diagonal)

Made fun of Class clown Butt of jokes Made fun of

oneself others

Made fun of oneself .12 .39* .32

Class clown .32*** .03 .29
Butt of jokes .27*** .33*** .14
Made fun of others .34*** .34*** .25***

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Table 2: Men only Pearson correlations between the four social uses of humor scales for
comedians (N = 28, above the diagonal) and for students (N = 200, below the diagonal)

Next, the correlations between the four humor behaviors with PBI and peer
relationships are displayed in Tables 3 (for the whole sample) and table 4 (for
men only). Overall, the results indicate that for comedians, both being the class
clown and making fun of others positively correlate with number of friends of
both sexes and popularity. There were no significant correlations between the
humor questions and the PBI. Very similar results were obtained using only the
men’s data.
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations for each scale for comedi-
ans and students, for both the full sample and the men only sample. Using t-test,
we compared the differences between comedians and students on each of the
four scales of the PBI. None of the differences were statistically significant for
both the full sample and the men-only sample.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
498    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

Made fun of Class clown Butt of jokes Made fun of

oneself others

Mother care
Comedians −.06 −.24 .10 −.06
Students . 04 .04 .03 .11*
Mother overprotection
Comedians .18 .24 .24 .26
Students −.04 −.04 .02 .01
Father care
Comedians .33 .38 −.02 .06
Students .11* .01 −.01 .07
Father overprotection
Comedians .10 −.07 .16 .25
Students −.09 −.06 .10 −.05
Same sex friends
Comedians .25 .44* −.09 .40*
Students .20** .15** .04 .08
Opposite sex friends
Comedians −.01 .46* −.01 .43
Students .17** .19** −.04 .07
Seek social activities
Comedians .33 .26 .09 .40*
Students .21** .24* −.09 .16**
Popular
Comedians −.01 .59** −.19 .34*
Students .23** .26** −.07 .12*

* p < .05.
** p < .01.

Table 3: Full sample Pearson correlations between the four humor behaviors, PBI and peer
relationships for stand-up comedians (N = 31) and for students (N = 400)

Next, we compared the two groups on each of the items in the Peer Relation-
ships and Humor Questionnaire. Results are shown in Table 6, along with Co-
hen’s d (Cohen 1988). There were no significant differences in any of the four
scales that measure social relationships with peers. In contrast, comedians
scored significantly higher on each of the questions that pertain to humor activi-
ties with peers.
Again, a comparison between male comedians and male students was con-
ducted on the same scales. Results were similar to the whole sample, albeit with
smaller effect sizes. There were non-significant differences on the first four scales.
For the other four scales, male comedians scored higher on each dimension.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    499

Made fun of Class clown Butt of jokes Made fun of

oneself others

Mother care
Comedians .01 −.27 .21 −.09
Students −.10 −.06 −.01 .03
Mother overprotection
Comedians .17 .08 .09 .11
Students −.02 −.04 .06 .07
Father care
Comedians .28 .40 −.01 .13
Students .01 .01 .04 −.01
Father overprotection
Comedians .08 −.22 .03 .14
Students .01 −.03 −.06 −.01
Same sex friends
Comedians .31 .43* .02 .44*
Students .32** .17* −.01 .14*
Opposite sex friends
Comedians −.03 .51** −.08 .35
Students .23** .21** −.01 .15*
Seek social activities
Comedians .28 .25 −.01 .45*
Students .28** .27** −.09 .19**
Popular
Comedians −.07 .56** −.26 .34
Students .27** .23** −.13 .10

* p < .05.
** p < .01.

Table 4: Men only Pearson correlations between the four humor behaviors, PBI and peer relation-
ships for stand-up comedians (N = 28) and for students (N = 200)

The students’ sample reveals two significant sex differences. Men were more
likely to report being the class clown (t [396] = 6.55, p < .001, d = 0.66), and more
likely to be the butt of the joke (t [395] = 3.84, p < .001, d = 0.39). There was a slight
tendency for men to be more likely to make fun of others, (t [398] = 1.75, p < .1,
d = 0.18).

4 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether professional comedians differ
from others in their relationships with parents and peers during childhood and

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
500    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

Students Comedians (n = 31) t d

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

PBI–mother
Care
Full sample 28.26 (7.88) 28.00 (6.61) 0.18 0.03
Men only 29.25 (5.86) 28.04 (6.73) 0.91 0.19
Overprotection
Full sample 14.41 (7.64) 13.87 (6.63) 0.39 0.07
Men only 14.06 (7.79) 13.78 (5.96) 0.18 0.04
PBI–father
Care
Full sample 24.04 (9.13) 22.32 (9.77) 0.91 0.18
Men only 22.87 (8.95) 23.22 (9.65) 0.16 0.04
Overprotection
Full sample 12.62 (7.89) 10.56 (5.85) 1.73 0.30
Men only 11.42 (7.66) 10.44 (5.72) 0.62 0.15

Table 5: Means, standard deviations and effect sizes for PBI scales by group for the full sample
(400 students, 31 comedians) and for men only sub-sample (200 students, 28 comedians)

adolescence. Overall, there were no differences in the way comedians describe

how their parents treated them, compared to the students’ descriptions. Major
differences emerged in respect to the way they report having used humor with
their peers during adolescence. Results also showed that relationships with par-
ents are largely independent of relationships with peers.
The results suggest that the interactions of comedians-to-be with people
within the same age group are important to their development as comedians. This
is consistent with the fact that humor is a social phenomenon. There is abundant
evidence showing that people engage in humor and laugh more frequently when
they are with other people than alone, and that humor plays an important role in
peer bonding and attracting mates (Greengross & Miller 2008, Lundy et al., 1998,
Martin & Kuiper 1999, Provine 2000). Making fun of others and being the class
clown allow individuals to connect with others. Granted, not all class clowns be-
come professional comedians, but those who do might observe how others enjoy
their humor, and decide to advance their skills toward the pursuit of a comic ca-
reer. Comedians’ use of different types of humor growing up might have built
their confidence, provided important experiences and contributed to the devel-
opment of their personality.
Comedians in this study also reported having a tendency to make fun of
themselves and being the butt of the joke. This tendency to use self-directed
­humor was not related to any social benefits (popularity or number of friends) for

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    501

Students Comedians t d
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Same sex friends 4.67 (1.25) 4.58 (1.69) −0.29 −0.06

Men only 4.86 (1.19) 4.76 (1.62) −0.31 −0.07
Opposite sex friends 4.39 (1.39) 4.14 (1.75) −0.95 −0.16
Men only 4.27 (1.36) 4.11 (1.82) −0.45 −0.10
Seek social activities 4.72 (1.30) 4.54 (1.18) −0.72 −0.14
Men only 4.62 (1.33) 4.55 (1.19) −0.23 −0.05
Popular 4.34 (1.22) 4.30 (1.27) −0.20 −0.04
Men only 4.39 (1.19) 4.38 (1.29) −0.06 −0.01
Made fun of oneself 3.88 (1.40) 4.50 (1.80) 2.32** 0.38
Men only 3.85 (1.35) 4.56 (1.84) 2.47* 0.44
Class clown 3.12 (1.74) 4.65 (1.64) 4.72*** 0.90
Men only 3.66 (1.78) 4.77 (1.55) 3.14** 0.67
Butt of the joke 3.05 (1.28) 3.60 (1.30) 2.32* 0.43
Men only 3.29 (1.18) 3.54 (1.21) 1.04 0.21
Made fun of others 3.47 (1.35) 4.35 (1.75) 3.41*** 0.56
Men only 3.59 (1.39) 4.34 (1.74) 2.60** 0.48

Positive effect size denotes that professional comedians scored higher than the students. df for
full sample comparisons are 427, and for the men sample df = 226.
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.
*** P < 0.001.

Table 6: Comparisons and effect sizes between professional comedians and students on the
Peer Relationships and Humor Questionnaire indices. Results are shown for both the full
sample (N = 400 for students; N = 31 for comedians), and the men only sample (N = 200 for
students; N = 28 for comedians)

comedians, whereas among students it was moderately linked to popularity and

number of same and opposite sex friends. To attempt to explain this difference
between the comedians and students, it is important to note that people use self-
deprecating humor in a variety of ways, some beneficial and some not. For some
people, self-deprecating humor arises from a negative self-image and involves ex-
cessively self-disparaging humorous comments. For others, it arises from positive
self-esteem, and involves an ability to make light of one’s own weaknesses and
failures, in a self-accepting way (Greengross & Miller 2008, Martin et al. 2003).
The findings of Fisher and Fisher (1981) suggest that self-disparaging humor of
comedians may be more of the negative kind. They found that comedians, com-
pared to actors and other entertainers, were more likely to perceive themselves as
unworthy, to make negative remarks about themselves, and to view themselves
as  small. These findings suggest feelings of uncertainty or lack of confidence

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
502    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

among comedians, resulting in excessively self-disparaging humor that others

find unfunny and hence lowers the perceived popularity of the joke-teller. Cor-
roborating this is the strong relationship between self-deprecating humor and
being the butt of others’ jokes (for both comedians and students), suggesting that
comedians indeed used a negative style of humor. On the other hand, students
who use a keen self-deprecating humor that makes others laugh, enjoy higher
esteem among friends, as shown by the significant positive correlation between
self-directed humor and popularity in this group, whereas this correlation was
non-significant among comedians.
Consistent with previous studies, being the class clown was related to being
popular in general, and was also associated with having more friends from both
sexes (Warnars-Kleverlaan et al. 1996). These relationships are stronger for come-
dians than for students, suggesting that comedians might use humor as a tool for
social approval.
Also consistent with previous studies, there were overwhelmingly more male
than female comedians in this study (Fisher & Fisher 1981; Janus 1975). Despite
changes in the comedy industry over the last few decades, the percentage of
­female comedians has remained at about 10–15%. It is not yet clear why there are
relatively few female comedians. However, it is noteworthy that more men report
being the class clowns, something that is consistent with previous studies
(­Damico & Purkey 1978, Fisher & Fisher 1981, Janus 1975). Thus, males’ greater
tendency to use humor to make others laugh seems to begin in childhood and
adolescence.
Although this study uses a relatively small sample of professional stand-up
comedians, it is the largest quantitative study of such comedians done since the
pioneering work of Janus (1975) and Fisher & Fisher (1981). The results give no
support to the common view that comedians had especially difficult relationships
with their parents (as indexed by the care and over-protectiveness scales of the
PBI) or their adolescent peers. The main difference between professional come­
dians and ordinary college students is that the comedians recalled being funnier
during adolescence.
While it is true that sense of humor is heritable to some degree (Manke 1998;
Vernon et al. 2008), humor is dynamic and changes throughout one’s life. It is not
known how comedians’ humor is similar to their parents, but it seems that they
develop their sense of humor in response to other people and to their own experi-
ences and feelings (Fisher & Fisher 1981, Janus 1975).
The current research is part of a larger study that aims to understand how
the personality, intelligence, humor styles and other aspects of modern stand-up
comedians differ from others (Greengross et al. 2012, Greengross & Miller 2009).
We used the Parental Bonding Instrument in an attempt to understand the

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    503

r­ elationship between comedians and their parents. PBI is considered one of

the  most reliable and valid measures for assessing relationships with parents.
Clearly, there are other measures that could be taken into account, most notably
the Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ), which measures the extent to
which one experienced secure attachment with his or her parents (Kenny 1987).
We can only speculate as to how the two measures will compare, but we think
that the PAQ will replicate our findings that comedians exhibit no difference in
their attachment styles compared to the general population. Humor is a social
activity, and as such, we expect that the motivation to be a comedian and actual
humor ability are shaped in response to peers, not parents. This is of course just
an educated guess, and further studies should use different tools such as the
PAQ  and other measures, in an attempt to examine different aspects of the
­relationship between comedians and their parents, to better understand the pos-
sible differences in ­experiences comedians might have had compared to other
people.
We should note that the sample of comedians in our study, although it in-
cluded professional stand-up comedians, did not include any nationally known
comedians, or comedians that are at the top of their profession. The previous em-
pirical studies of comedians included top tier comedians (Janus 1975, Janus et al.
1978). Thus while all comedians in both studies were professionals, comparison
between the data in our study to the previous research may not be entirely accu-
rate. The results from the current study may therefore not generalize to great
­comedians, ones that are on top of the comedy world.
One limitation to this study is that the comedians were older than the stu-
dents, and thus might be less accurate in their recall of childhood experiences.
However, the fact that comedians expressed both positive and negative attributes
about themselves growing up may indicate that the bias is relatively small. It is
also possible that while parents do not greatly influence adolescence, they do
influence the development of children’s humor in early years (McGhee and Chap-
man 1980). Another limitation is the relatively small sample of comedians (31).
The lack of statistical power might have yielded null results whereas it is possible
that with a larger sample size more results would have been significant. On the
other hand, because of the large sample size of students, some of the significant
results for the comparisons between the students and the comedians might be
overstated. Also, when comparing the full sample to the men only sample, similar
correlations and effect sizes might not retain their significant value. Thus, the
data should be interpreted as suggestive and not definitive. Further studies should
use larger sample size and take a deeper look at the interactions of comedians
among peers and others to better understand how and to what degree this dy-
namic might inspire the decision to become a comedian.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
504    Gil Greengross, Rod A. Martin and Geoffrey Miller

References
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Damico, Sandra B. & William W. Purkey. 1978. Class clowns: A study of middle school students.
American Educational Research Journal 15. 391–398.
Dixon, N. F. 1980. Humor: A cognitive alternative to stress? In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger
(eds.), Stress and anxiety, Vol. 7, 281–289. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Fisher, Seymour & Rhoda Lee Fisher. 1981. Pretend the world is funny and forever: A
psychological analysis of comedians, clowns, and actors. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Freud, Sigmund. 1928. Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 9. 1–6.
Greengross, Gil, Rod A. Martin & Geoffrey F. Miller. 2012. Personality traits, intelligence, humor
styles, and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians compared to
college students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts 6. 74–82.
Greengross, Gil & Geoffery F. Miller. 2009. The Big Five personality traits of professional
comedians compared to amateur comedians, comedy writers, and college students [July].
Personality and Individual Differences 47. 79–83.
Greengross, Gil & Geoffrey F. Miller. 2008. Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of
status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-
deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology 6. 393–408.
Janus, Samuel S. 1975. The great comedians: Personality and other factors. American Journal
of Psychoanalysis 35. 169–174.
Janus, Samuel S., Barbara E. Bess & Beth R. Janus. 1978. The great comediennes: Personality
and other factors. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis 38. 367–372.
Kenny, Maureen E. 1987. The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year
college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 16. 17–29.
Lizardi, Humberto & Daniel N. Klein. 2005. Long-term stability of parental representations in
depressed outpatients utilizing the Parental Bonding Instrument. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 193. 183–198.
Lundy, Duane E., Josephine Tan & Michael R. Cunningham. 1998. Heterosexual romantic
preferences: The importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of
relationships. Personal Relationships 5. 311–325.
Manke, Beth. 1998. Genetic and environmental contributions to children’s interpersonal humor.
In Willibald Ruch (ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic
(Humor Research 3), 361–384. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Martin, Rod A. & Nicholas Kuiper. 1999. Daily occurrence of laughter: Relationships with age,
gender, and type A personality. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 12(4).
355–384.
Martin, Rod A., P. Puhlik-Doris, G. Larsen, J. Gray & K. Weir. 2003. Individual differences in uses
of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles
Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37. 48–75.
McGhee, Paul E. & Antony J. Chapman (eds.). 1980. Children’s humour. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Parker, Gordon, Hilary Tupling & L. B. Brown. 1979. A parental bonding instrument. British
Journal of Medical Psychology 52. 1–10.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
 Childhood experiences of comedians    505

Provine, Robert. 2000. Laughter: A scientific investigation. New York: Viking.

Vaillant, George E. 2000. Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology.
American Psychologist 55. 89–98.
Vernon, Philip, Rod A. Martin, J. A. Schermer, L. Cherkas & T. Spector. 2008. Genetic and
environmental contributions to humor styles: A replication study. Twin Research and
Human Genetics 11. 44–47.
Warnars-Kleverlaan, Nel, Louis Oppenheimer & Larry Sherman. 1996. To be or not to be
humorous: Does it make a difference? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research
9(2). 117–141.
Wilhelm, Kay, Heather Niven, Gordon Parker & Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic. 2005. The stability of the
Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period. Psychological Medicine 35. 387–393.
Wilhelm, Kay & Gordon Parker. 1990. Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and
Intimate Bond Measure scales. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 24.
199–202.
Wood, James M., M. Teresa Nezworski, Howard N. Garb & Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2001. Problems
with the norms of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: Methodological and
conceptual considerations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 8. 397–402.
Wood, James M., M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld & Howard N. Garb. 2003. What’s
wrong with the Rorschach?: Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Acknowledgements
We thank Steve Gangestad, James Boone and two anonymous reviewers for their
useful comments and suggestions. A special thanks to Kari Greengross for her
­assistance in preparing this manuscript for publication.

Brought to you by | Oakland University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM
Brought to you by | Oakland University
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/1/15 9:39 PM